Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

The "we" problem...

Posted by mapologist on 09 Sep 2011 at 21:31 GMT

we
http://plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0021236#article1.body1.sec3.sec2.p14

Since Jaak Panksepp is the only author of this paper, I really wonder what is meant by this "we".

It is always interesting to see how scientists of all sorts make rhetorical use of the term "we", apparently not being aware of this "subjectivism problem" or problem of some "theory of mind".

Although H. sapiens may be the best "mind-reader", reading minds is always subjected to some "ToM", i.e., I will never be able to be sure what another body thinks or feels -- unless "our" bodies will be linked directly (brain-to-brain link) perhaps...

No competing interests declared.

RE: The "we" problem...

jvkohl replied to mapologist on 11 Sep 2011 at 02:26 GMT

Given the context, I'm somewhat certain that "we" includes most other neuroscientists. For example, I agree with Panksepp, but of course there are many others.

Regarding the "ToM." Clearly, Panksepp's bottom up approach is the gene-cell-tissue-organ-organ system pathway that links sensory input to mammalian behavior. And his top down approach merely requires sensory input that activate genes in this organized pathway. But that's not theory, it's biological fact. And Panksepp addresses how sure we can be of his biological facts. Did you find any factual errors?


Competing interests declared: Pheromones.com / Scent of Eros